Occamsrasr wrote:Oh, I thought the P&W YF-22 crashed and the GE bird was at the museum dressed up to look like the P&W version. For some reason I thought the two F-23s were in storage or being used by NASA.

I heard we were getting F-22s here at Elmendorf but who knows how long that will take. Not sure if the 12th or 19th FS will get them. Less "Chucks" for me to watch in the pattern I guess.

YF crashed a back in 97 or 98. Elmendorf *might* get them, still up in the air.

The outline shape of Northrop Grumman's proposed F/B-23 "regional" bomber concept may have been revealed inadvertently in the form of a desk-top model recently advertised on eBay, the on-line auction house.

The model, which was suddenly withdrawn from sale on 23 February, is dubbed F/B-23 RTA (Rapid Theater Attack), and is therefore believed to relate to earlier concepts predating the US Air Force's more recent long-range-strike studies. However, the overall configuration retains the basic rhomboid wing, and outward- canted empennage of the baseline YF-23A, in addition to an enlarged fuselage that forms the basis for Northrop Grumman's interim bomber proposal.

Other features of the model that may distance it from the YF-23-based actual proposal include axisymmetric engine nozzles and larger, semi-circular engine inlets.

Northrop Grumman declines to comment on the model, or its appearance, but confirms continued pursuit of USAF bomber studies and says "we are definitely interested in all those possibilities".

The model's appearance coincides with the decision by the USAF's Air Combat Command to launch an analysis of alternatives (AOA) around the third-quarter of 2005 that could lead to a competitive development programme for an interim long-range-strike aircraft.

The revised USAF plan indicates an 18-month AOA phase, leading to the creation of a capabilities development document by the end of 2007.

This could pave the way for a later system development and demonstration phase aimed at 2018 initial operating capability.

The 2006 USAF budget includes money for the regional bomber study work, but there is currently no additional funding in the service's five-year budget plan. Another issue is that the Lockheed Martin/Boeing F/A-22, which forms the basis for a potential proposed F/B-22 interim bomber variant, is likely to be out of production by then under the current budget plans.

The long-abandoned YF-23A Advanced Tactical Fighter emerged as the possible basis for a surprise contender for the USAF's interim bomber requirement last July when Northrop Grumman retrieved the second of the two YF-23A "Black Widow II" prototypes from the Western Museum of Flight in Hawthorne, California. The move, made ostensibly for repainting for display at an air fair that August, also included several cosmetic modifications believed to be linked to the bomber bid.

Under the original timetable, the interim bomber was intended to bridge the gap between the current bomber fleet and a next-generation aircraft planned for 2037. The present timetable calls for IOC by 2018 rather than 2015.

Northrop Grumman's long-abandoned YF-23A advanced tactical fighter (ATF) is emerging as the possible basis for a surprise contender for the US Air Force's interim bomber requirement.

The company recently retrieved the second of the two YF-23A "Black Widow II" prototypes (PAV-2) from the Western Museum of Flight in Hathorne, California, ostensibly for repainting for display at a forthcoming Northrop Grumman-backed air fair in August. However, the restoration is also thought to include several changes, including new cockpit displays and other possible cosmetic modifications.

Northrop Grumman confirms restoration of the General Electric YF120-powered PAV-2 is taking place, but declines to comment on whether the revived YF-23A is linked to any USAF proposal. But sources close to the studies, which were kicked off by the USAF's recently issued request for information, say Northrop Grumman now includes a YF-23-based "regional" bomber concept among its raft of proposals and that the USAF "is interested".

Until now, the company's offerings are known to include an upgraded B-2, X-47B unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) -based studies and possible designs based on its quiet supersonic technology programme. The distinctive, rhomboid-winged YF-23A lost out to Lockheed Martin's YF-22 in the ATF competition in 1991, but proved a valuable technology testbed for Northrop Grumman, which gave it all-aspect stealth. The company says it "drew upon a wide range of experience for its response to the interim bomber RFI, and the YF-23 is one".

Other contenders include a Boeing's B-1R (regional) re-engined bomber studies and a larger D-model version of its X-45 UCAV, while Lockheed Martin is considering various derivatives of the F/A-22. These include single- and two-seat, re-winged and tailless versions dubbed the FB-22, the larger of which would be able to cruise at Mach 1.8 and have 75% of the range of the B-2 carrying up to 30 115kg (250lb) small-diameter bombs. Lockheed Martin is also understood to be offering a variety of other manned designs, including a flying-wing concept.

The interim bomber is intended to bridge the gap between the current bomber fleet and a next-generation aircraft planned for 2037. The present timetable calls for a development effort to start in 2006, with an initial operating capability by 2015.

Lots of good info in there about a 'regional' bomber, never thought this thread would generate something like that. Pretty interesting stuff, thats for sure. There was mention of the F/B-22, if it went to production, having 75% of the range of a B-2. I can't help but wonder how well that would work in a single-pilot aircraft? Seems an awful long time for one guy to sit in the seat for regular missions (U-2 buffs, I know your guys do it...).

didn't someone in this thread say that there are rumours that the YF-23 became a black project while the YF-22 became a white project or something. My eyes are too tired to find it and i can't seem ot find it.

I'll be dead by then, would like to see it re-emerge though. Thanks for the data.

Dont be so pessimistic, you might be in an iron lung at least :p (J/K)

Good stuff here... I remember an article in the Dayton Daily about the YF-23 being moved to Wright Patt not to long ago. IIRC, it is still in the shop on base and not in the museum yet. They are doing quite a bit of restoration work to it. Apparantly both YF-23s never got the luxary of storage. They just sat on a runway at their last location untill they decayed. IIRC in the newspaper article one of the museum curators was saying that it was almost as bad as restoring "older fighters" with an implication dating back to at least Vietnam era.

I had heard the same thing, about them letting the airplanes 'sit'. I can't open the above link, so I don't know if that addresses it. But, I had heard references that the airplane sat on a ramp near the end of a runway at the manufaturers airfield.

Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.

Unless you sat in on the source selection, or were part of higher company management that got the USAF post-selection debrief, you won't know the reason for the F-22 winning over the YF-23. I heard that the YF-23 was faster and the YF-22 was more maneuverable. Both rumors make sense to me based on basic vehicle shape.

What folks may not realize is that selection is based on a multitude of factors:

2) Risk - Each company is evaluated for its ability to produce what they propose for the cost they say and within the schedule they say. We all know overruns and slips will occur, we just try to estimate which bidder is more or less likely than the others. A big part of this is based on how much new technology is being implemented relative to that company's experience with those technologies.

3) Performance - Obvious, but you have to realize that the USAF Request for Proposal (RFP) asks for a certain level of performance...exceeding the requirement helps, especially everything else being equal, but won't necessarily guarantee a win if the other guys just barely meets the requirements (key is he DID meet them) but are better elsewhere (cost, risk, etc).

There can be other factors and usually are, but these are the big ones.

All that said, I had friends in the ATF program office who said that both were great, but overall the Lockheed Martin proposal was judged just a bit better.

As an aside, a reference was made above to a "flyoff". The "Dem Val" was NOT a flyoff. They were not compared to each other (In fact no pilot or engineer worked on both aircraft...that was intentional to ensure nobody got an edge). Each aircraft's performance was in reality compared to it's paper proposal to provide the USAF confidence in the design. Specifically, the aircraft were flown to demonstrate areas that the contractor or the USAF felt were risk areas to show that the risk was manageable. For example, one contractor (forget which) fired a missile from its internal weapons bay whereas the other did not see the need to do so. (one design was judged to be risky and it was deemed prudent to demonstrate that it would work).